Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/governmentcontraOOstev 



GOYERNMBNT CONTRACTS 



E 480 
.S84 
Copy 1 



SPEECH 



OF 



HON. THAD. STEYENS, 



OF PENNSYLVANIA, 



IN THE HOUSE OF EEPRESENTATIVES 



April 28, 1862, 

assal 
em'be' 
dered ^ 
"^^"^ ^Sn the Eeport of the Select Committee on Gdvernment Contracts. 

a,y last aa ^ 

olified ine 
ill up these . 
propet to 
ithstandiug; 
le candor o" 
3tt3 one fi;^ 
mitted throj 

lat I wa's a ,. q— — 

iformed m» 
nd that I j| 
rhich I co»* 
leave t> 
Lave an 
he pap 
tostpo 
iSondaf 

-AaMM.LL & CO,PE:iNTERrcll^^ES'& InD. AVENUE, THIRD FLOOR. 
■taf* \ 1862. 

^lai 
lud 



ve IT 
ani 



SPEECH. 



Mr. STEVENS said: 

If I were not impelled by a sease of duty to 
defend gentlemen who have been calumniated 
in this report and upon this floor, yet I am sure 
it vfould be expected cf me to make some reply 
to the remarks of the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts, [Mr. Dawes,] and that he would feel 
that he was treated with neglect if I wholly 
omitted thatdaty. [Laughter.] I shall, there- 
fore, I trust, in a spirit of calmness, and cer- 
tainly without any further personalities than 
are unavoidable in the discussion of this re- 
port, proceed to make a few remarks. I shall 
argue this question in rem and not in personam, 
any further than the person sticks to the thing. 
And certainly no member of the committee 
will be brought in question in the remarks I 
shall make, except the honorable member from 
Massachusetts, [Mr, Dav.'es,] for no other 
member has said anything which can be con- 
sidered as personal or unkind. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts on Fri- 
day last announced to the House that he had 
notified me that he was about to proceed to 
call up these resolutions, but that I had deemed 
it proper to be absent on that occasion not- 
withstanding that notice. I had expected from 
the candor of the gentleman from Massachu- 
setts one further remark, which I am sure he 
omitted through mere forgetful n ess, which was 
that I wa's about leaving the House when he 
informed me that he would call up this matter, 
and that I told him that I had an appointment 
•which I could not forego with strangers about 
to leave the city, but that I supposed I should 
hare an opportunity of seeing his remarks in 
the papers, unless he should think proper to 
postpone the discussion of the subject until 
Monday. If he determined, however, to call 
up the subject, and proceed with the discus- 
sion, I hoped he would mention the circum- 
stances to the House. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts did not mention the latter fact, 
and I was indebted to my friend from Indiana 



] [Mr. Colfax] for bringing that information to 
the attention of the House, so that no harm 

I was done. I merely mention the circumstance. 

i I make no complaint at all. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts further 
complains that while all the members of his 
comniitte were absent — I have no doubt very 
usefully and properly employed, some of them 
wandering about in New York, some in Penn- 
sylvania, some in Ohio, and others to the four 
quarters of the globe, tracking these rogues 
that they have been pursuing with such com- 
mendable industry— some remarks were made 
in this House reflecting upon the integrity of 
their report. 

Now, Mr, Speaker, you know, and the House 
know, that the discussion which took place on 
that occasion was not voluntary on the part of 
those who rose to defend the characters of per- 
sons assailed in that report. The learned gen- 
tleman from New York [Mr. Divex] intro- 
duced a resolution, which I do not say was 
called up on that day on his motion. I do not 
recollect how it came up. Upon that resolu- 
tion he made a speech, able, eloquent, some- 
what bitter, against the gentlemen who were 
named in his resolution, which sought the 
direction of this House to proceed to recover 
money illegally retained, as was alleged, by 
Major General Fremont and Mr. Beard. And 
he founded his authority and justification for 
such an extraordinary proceeding, with which, 
in my humble judgment, we had nothing more 
to do than we have with these resolutions, for 
they are all beyond the jurisdiction of. the 
House — he founded his nisolution upon what 
he called the condemnation of these men by 
the report of this committee. 

Now, it would have been possible for those 
who were disposed to see justice done by this 
House to do one of two things: either to sit 
quietly by and suffer this charge to go forth as 
true, or to impeach the testimony upon which 
the gentleman from New York founded it. We 



pursued the latter course. It is true that ■when 
the genth-man from Massachusetts | Mr. Thom- 
as] called our attention to the fact that the com- 
mittee were not here, we miirht ha%'e stopped at 
once and allowed the House to condemn the 
other gentlemen who were never here, without 
a hearing. That would have been, I suppose, 
what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Dawks] would call "even-handed justice;" that 
ia, even-handed a la mode the report of this com- 
miUee. [Laughter.] 

But, sir, passing over that, the gentleman 
complained that those who defended the gentle- 
man against the charges of this report, charged 
that the report itself contained fraudulent rep- 
resentations, false representations, injurious, 
calumnious representations against several par- 
ties. 

Well, sir, it shall be my humble task here to 
prove every one of these charges, not by in- 
voking facts that have not been brought before 
the House, not by giving my version of testi- 
mony which may be locked up in my breast, 
not by quoting what may have been reported 
in the newspapers, but I shall attempt to prove 
them by what would be legitimate legal evi- 
dence before any jury in any court of justice in 
the land. If I fail in that, I will not attempt to 
support my position by other means. 

Preliminary to that, however, I will say that 
I think I have a right to complain that this 
committee have not conducted their investiga- 
tiod3 in a manner which I call fair. That is 
to say. when t'.iey proceeded to investigate the 
frauds of any gentleman connected with the 
Government or not connected with it, they 
gave such person no notice of it, they Inrnished 
him with no copy of the evidence supposed to 
implicate him, and they afforded him no op- 
portunity to call witnesses to explain the testi- 
mony against him or to recall the witnesses 
whose testimony, as is alleged, goes to impeach 
his conduct. 

Mr. FENTON. I cannot say what the prac- 
tice of the committee may have been in Ohio 
or on the Mississippi, where they have held 
their sessions ; but so far as I know, the prac- 
tice pursued by them in New York, in Harris- 
burg, and in this city, at the sessions of the 
committee when I have been present, the prac- 
tice which the gentleman condemns has not 
been pursued by the committee. I cannot call 
to mind one instance where the committee 
have failed to serve upon the party accused a 
copy of the testimony bearing upon him, or 
have not afforded him ample opportunity for 
personal explanation. Beyond the sessions of 
the committee in the places I have named, I 
have no information other than that in the pos- 
seasiou of every member of the House. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. That has been the 
general practice of the committee everywhere. 

Mr. STEVENS. Yes sir. The documents, 
however, do not show it, and I am sure the 
sworn testimony will not show it. I know that 



in New York application was several times 
made to have witnesses subpoenaed, and yet 
the committee never issued such subpceuas. I 
am quite sure that such was the fact in refe- 
rence to General Fremont. At least I believe 
it to be so. I think it was so in regard to Mr. 
Cummings ; and in no case, so far as I recol- 
lect, does the journal of the committee show 
that they pursued that course. 

Mr. DAWES. What does the gentleman 
say in reference to Mr. Cummings? 

Mr. STEVENS. I spoke of a single in- 
stance when it was desired that Mr. Blatch- 
ford should be subpoenaed ; but he was not 
subpa'uaed. 

Mr. DAWES. That was sufficiently set 
forth in the debate the other day, and I sup- 
posed everybody understood it ; but of course 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania did not. 

Mr. STEVENS. Did the gentleman issue a 
subpoena for Mr. Blatchford ? 

Mr. DAWES. I suppose the gentleman 
does not refer to me individually. 

Mr. STEVENS. I mean the committee. 

Mr. DAWES. Certainly they did. 

Mr. STEVENS. But was that before the re- 
port was filed ? 

Mr. DAWES. We gave the invitation before 
the report was filed. 

Mr. STEVENS. Ah ! 

Mr. DAWES. The gentleman knows that 
before the report was made an appointment 
was made to meet Mr. Blatchford ; but when 
he did not appear, the cotnmittee then had a 
subpoena issue^d to compel his appearance. The 
gentleman knows that. 

Mr. STEVENS. I did not know it. 

Mr. DAWES. I perceive that the gentleman 
does not know it. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. I say that General 
Fremont had notice given to him. 

Mr. DAWES. If the gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania will yield to me right here I will state 
that Mr. Simon Stevens, a gentleman who feels 
aggrieved by one of the resolutions, called upon 
the committt-e, and the committee told him to 
go to General Fremont and inquire of him 
when it would bi* most agreeable for him to ap- 
pear before the committee. They wanted him 
to fix his own time, and the committee would 
accommodate him. 

Mr. STEVENS. I suppose he would have 
answered a subpoena. But the journal of the 
committee shows precisely what 1 have stated — 
that no notice was given and no testimony fur- 
nished to the accused. I find in the journals 
of a former select committee on naval contracts 
that they not only gave the party implicated 
notice, but a copy of the testimony implicating 
him. I see in the Globe that Mr. Wade, a Sen- 
ator from Ohio, and chairman of another select 
committee, made this declaration : 

" We sought no evidence to impeach any man, 
' and if the evidence seemed to impinge on the 



' credibility, the loyalty, or the character of any 
' man, we sought that man, and laid before him 
' the course of the evidence, and the matters 
' ^siierein he was inculpated.'' 

A worthy and just example, which I regret 
extremely that this committee, which has so 
large au influence upon the public mind, has 
not followed, and given notice in the case I 
have referred to. I know, sir, that the Spanish 
inquisition may be cited on the other side. 
They did business just as this committee have 
done it. But as worthier examples for imita- 
tion, I would have preferred those of Senator 
Wade and the committee on naval contracts. 
But all of this is incidental. 

I do not object to these interruptions; but as 
they occupy my time, I hope that the House 
will not object to my continuing beyond my 
hour, if necessary, in order to fiuish my re- 
marks. 

Now, sir, I have said that there were fraud- 
ulent reports. I will have to take a single in- 
stance, because I shall not have an opportunity 
to refer to more than half of this book ; [laugh- 
ter ;] and these gentlemen, they say, have 
something in reserve which they will make 
public at anothef time. I am led to believe 
from the mysterious hints which have fallen 
from the gentleman from Massachusetts that 
they have enough behind to answer for all th^t 
it is necessary to kill. They can, no doubt, very 
easily fill their quivers with arrows of the sort 
they have already shot at the characters of 
others. 

I will give one or two examples. They under- 
take to censure the Secretary of War for his 
appointment of Governor Morgan and Alexan- 
der Cumraings, at the time we were blockaded 
here, to forward men and supplies to the Gov- 
ernment here. There is nothing brought against 
the character of the men here. They stand be- 
fore the world unimpeached and unimpeachable 
so far as the case in controversy is concerned. It 
was necpssary in order to implicate the Secre- 
tary of War that something should be made out 
of the impropriety and fraud of any of his ap- 
pointees. 

I will mention, in this connection, that until 
my personal relation toward the Secretary of 
War becam« the topic of discussion and denun- 
ciation by the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
I never mentioned the name of General Came- 
ron. Heretofore, I have never mentioned his 
name in connection with this report. I did 
speak of the transaction of Alexander Cura- 
mings, but not of the Secretary of War. 

Let us see whether General Cameron is to 
be censured for appointing Mr. Cammings. 
That is the only ground of censure. The com- 
mitted ma.y have in their reserve magazine 
other grounds which they are not now willing 
to publish £o us. If this does not kill, they are 
to bring out other weapons. Thev charge Mr. 
Cummiugs, who was appointed to purchase 
supplies and forward them, in connectioa with 



Governor Morgan, with receiving and not ac- 
counting for $140,000 of the public money. I 
say that that is a false charge. I did not under- 
stand the committee exactly confirmed that 
fact; but we have in this report elaboratei;f — 
well, not elaborately, for they could not devote 
too much time to one victim, they had so many 
to skin, [laughter] — but '.ve have most distinctly 
the charge that Mr. Cummiugs had $140,000 
more in his possession than he testified to in 
his testimony, and that he has not accounted 
for it. I say that the testimony does not show 
that he has one dollar of the kind. I said be- 
fore, in answer to the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts, who said that he might have settled 
it with the War Department, that he knew he 
could not have settled it there. 

Mr. DAWES. I do not see my colleague 
on the committee here. 

Mr. STEVENS. Yes ; the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Holm an] is right in front of me. 

Mr. Da WES. My colleague can infjrm the 
House that those vouchers are still unsettled 
before the Department, although the gentleman 
got somewhat angry because I would not admit 
that thev were settled. 

Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman did not 
profess anything. 

Mr. DAWES. The gentleman seemed to 
know, because he positively asserted that they 
were unsettled. 

Mr. STEVENS. I asked the gentleman if 
he did not know they were. My colleague states 
that the accounts have been settled. 

Mr. KELLEY. I have information that the 
members of the committee have been misin- 
formed on this subject, and that every dollar of 
these accounts has been settled. 

Mr. HOLM AN. Will the gentleman permit ' 
me '? 

Mr. STEVENS. The gentleman will follow 
me. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I want to say a word right 
here. Au issue of fact is made whether these 
accounts are settled. 

Mr. STEVENS. Whether his vouchers are 
filed and settled. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I ask 'the Clerk to read the 
letter which I send to his desk. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

Tkeasuky Departmext, 
Third Auditor's Office, April 28, 1862. 

Sir : In reply to your letter of this date, in 
which you inquire, in behalf of the Government 
contract committee, " in what manner the ac- 
counts of Alexander Cumniings, Esq., agent for 
the War Department in the months of April and 
May, 1861, have been settled," I have the honor 
to inform you that such accounts, with receipts 
and vouchers pertaining thereto, are on file in 
this office, but" have not yet been settled. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
R. J. ATKINSON, 
Hon. W. S. HoLMAN, Auditor. 

House of Eqjreseniatives. 



Mr. KELLEY. This gentleman undoubledly 
has a receipt in full throucrh Mr. Cisco, and a 
drat't for th%balauce on hand. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Who executed the receipt? 
I undertake to say that the accounts have not 
been settled ; that they have never passed 
through any department of the Government. 

Mr. S 1 EVENS. . I understand that he has 
filed his vouchers for every dollar. 

Mr. HOLMAN. I want an answer to my 
question. 

Mr. KELLEY. I will answer it by saying 
that I am not as skilled m mousing as some of 
the ^'eutlemeu of this committee, and have not 
examined the copy of the receipt, but it is a 
receipt from the proper otficer of the Govern- 
ment. It ii a full receipt, and such as would 
be satisfactory in any court. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Will the gentleman state 
the name of the officer? 

Mr. KELLEY. I tell the gentleman I am 
not sufficiently skilled in the practice of mous- 
ing to be able to give him the information he 
asks. 

Mr. HOLMAN. Does the gentleman know 
who signed the receipt ? 

Mr. STEVENS. This cross firing is a little 
annoying to me just now. I believe, from the 
iuformati«n obtained from the Treasury De- 
partment, that the matter amounts to this — that 
there are vouchers there fur the whole amount 
of it, but that they have not been yet put on 
file, and put the other end up, as they will have 
to be before they are filed away. [Laughter.] 

Now, sir, there are vouchers for all. And as 
to the rest of this money — $140,000— it is cf 
no importance so far as this question is con- 
cerned, for he never had a dollar of it in his 
possession. And yet the committee undertake 
to say that he had. A reference to it is found 
on page 6G of the report, and I wish the atten- 
tion of gentlemen who are interested in the 
matter. The committee say : 

" After Mr. Cummings had concluded his tes- 
' timony and taken the same for revision, he add- 
' ed the following note : 

" I have retained, under the authority of the 
' Secretary of the Treasury, by Messrs. Dix, 
' Blatcbford, and Opdyke, $140,000, besides what 
' I have stated in my testimony, which is account- 
' ed for by the vouchers." 

They made his note read, " I have retained." 
Now, 1 v/iil read a few words to show how this 
committee understood that: 

'• Still we arc informed by this note" — 

after having spoken of the disposition of the re- 
mainder — 

' that Mr. Cummings has retained $140,000 of 
' the money over and above that stated in his 
' testimony, ($250,000,) 'which is accounted for 
' by the vouchers.' This item seems to have been 
' overlooked by him in his testimony. One hun- 
' dred and forty thousand dollars is in his hands 



' over a^d above the $100,000 for which he has 
' filed vouchers in the War Department," &c. 

And then they go on to censure the Secre- 
tary of War for not having called sooner for 
the vouchers for the $140,000, the other having 
been accounted for. Now, it turns out that 
Cummings never wrote such a note. He wrote 
them a note informing them that '' there had 
been retained, under authority of the Secretary 
of the Treasury, by Messrs. Dix, Blatchford, and 
Opdyke," in whose hands, you will remember, 
the whole was deposited, and drawn out as 
needed, " $140,000, besides what I have stated 
in my testimony, which is accounted for by the 
vouchers." 

Mr. DAWES. Accounted for by the vouch- 
ers? 

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, sir ; the vouchers ; 
and beyond that they say there were $140,000 
in his hands. And then tbey go on to say that 
it was in his hands, and what a crime it was. 
Thus, it being a fraudulent transaction, and not 
having for four months accounted for it, they 
draw the inference that the Secretary of War 
should be censured. 

Now, as I said before, I want you to look at 
the original note. It does not say, " I have re- 
tained under authority," &c., but "there re- 
tained under the authority," &:c. Now, when 
the original was found, admitting that there 
was a mistake in this, the committee say it was 
the mistake of the printer — these printers' mis- 
takes are very convenient things — and that it 
should have read, " there retained." Now, 
.Mr. Speaker, recollect that whoever made the 
mistake, the printer did not write the report 
charging Cummings with having $140,000 in 
his hands. The printer did not say that Mr. 
Cummings said «o. That was written by the 
committee ; when, I do notknr w. It was before 
the report was printed that the thing was writ- 
ten ; for when this thing was first up before 
the House the testimony was not printed. It 
was not before the House, nor for some weeks 
afterwards ; and the gentleman from Massachn- 
seits alone [Mr. Dawes] had what he said were 
the proof sheets, from which he sometimes en- 
lightened us with what was behind, but which 
we had not seen. Now, how do the committee 
account for their writing a report upon the mis- 
take of the printer? I suppose the report was 
written before it was furnished to the printer. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. I will state to the 
gentleman that the evidence and report were 
printed together. 

Mr. STEVENS. Then, if the evidence and 
report were printed together, the report was 
founded upon a falsehood, and all printed to- 
gether. 

Mr. DAWES. If the gentleman will allow 

me 

Mr. STEVENS, I do not want any other 
explanation. This suits me exactly. [Laugh- 
ter.] I will excuse the gentleman. 



Mr. DAWES. Does the gentleman decline 
to have me interrupt him and tell him just how 
it is? 

Mr. STEVENS. I have not declined to hear 
any gentleman's explanation, though these ex- 
planations are a little annoying. 

Mr. DAWES. I do not think my colleague 
[Mr. Washlurne] designed to say that the 
report was written before the evidence was 
printed. 

Mr. STEVENS. That is what he did say. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. I said, or intended to 
say, that the report and evidence were present- 
ed together. 

Mr. STEVENS. "Printed" was the word. 
These lapsus linguce and lapsus pennce, Sec, are 
bad things. [Laughter.] 

Mr. DAWES. I suppose the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania desires to have it right. I 
do not know. 

Mr. STEVENS. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. DAWES. I told the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania the other day — what every mem- 
ber of the House will bear me ont in saying — 
that no member of the committee ever saw that 
•writing until the day before I brought it into 
the House ; that it was handed to the clerk of 
the committee by Mr. Cummings, by the clerk 
taken to the printing office, by the printer set 
up, by the printer read in proof, and after it 
was set up and in the proof, it was handed to 
us in print, and not a member of the com- 
mittee ever saw the cri^final note until the day 
before I brought it into the House here, more 
than three months after the report had been 
made. 

Mr. STEVENS. How did it get into the 
printer's hands? 

Mr. DAWES. Does the gentleman forget 
how I told him it got there ? I told you a mo- 
ment ago that Mr. Cummings handed it to the 
clerk, that the clerk of the committee took it to 
the printer, and that not a member of the com- 
mittee ever saw it until three months after the 
printed report appeared here in the House. I 
hope the gentleman will not forget it. 

Mr. STEVENS. I have not forgotten it. 

Mr. DAWES. Then you are to blame for 
the mistake. 

Mr. STEVENS. Perhaps I may be ; but I 
have a letter here from Mr. Defrees, the Super- 
intendent of Public Printing, who states- that 
as he printed this matter he sent a copy of each 
proof-sheet to each member of the committee. 

Mr. DAWES. Centainly. 

Mr. STEVENS. Now, it will hardly do to 
say that they did not see the proof; and when 
if, was taken, it seems to me they ought to have 
looked at it. The comaiittee that takes testi- 
mony, that has it printed, that reads the proof, 
are responsible for it, especially if they found 
upon it a grave charge against the integrity of 
an upright citizen, and charge him with embez- 
zlement. And I may be allowed to say that 
the statement of the gentleman from Massachu- 



setts makes the matter no better. There is a 
principle in law which he well knows, that 
when a man rashly, and without taking the 
proper means to ascertain the facts, swears to 
a fact material to the issue, and it turns out to 
be false, although he did not know it to be 
false, although he supposed it to be true, yet, 
as he has rashly sworn to a fact which he did 
not know to be true, he is guilty of perjury, and 
deserves the penitentiary. Such is the law of 
the country, and such is its application to this 
report. A committee, having every opportuni- 
ty of knowing the facts, makes a report to the 
country, damning the character of a man, so 
far as their damnation will go, and have no 
other excuse than saying it was a mistake of 
the printer. I say it is their fault, and they 
are just as much answerable for it as if they 
had wilfully forged it, and written " I have," 
instead of " there was retained ;" and the sense 
of justice of the community will hold them re- 
sponsible before the world, as the law holds 
them responsible in a legal point of view. 
This is fraudulent representation No. 1. 

Let me come to No. 2. That is the celebra- 
ted case of Augustus A. Sacchi. The committee 
say that General Fremont found a man in New 
York by the name of Sacchi, and that he went 

out West 

Mr. WASHBURN. Will the gentleman be 
good enough to read that part of the report in 
which the committee say that ? 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, then, that a man 
from New York found Fremont. [Laughter.] 
I think the testimony shows that a man by the 
name of Sacchi, from New York, went to St. 
Louis, if I recollect the evidence aright, under 
directions from General Fremont, and entered 
into a contract with an aid of General Fremont 
by the name of Wood, for a certain number of 
Canadian horses. After he had made that con- 
tract, he went off and never complied with it ; 
he did not live up to the contract. The contract, 
the committee say, was made in defiance of all 
propriety, because they ought to have bought 
the horses in the western country ; and yet they 
contracted with this man Sacchi, who failed to 
comply with the contract. They do not say that 
he ever received any of the money. I believe 
the contrary appears even in their own book, if 
T understand it correctly. They then go on to 
censure it as having been a fraudulent transac- 
tion, made under the direction of General Fre- 
mont. They show what a fraudulent contract 
it was, made with a man of the name of Sacchi. 
They did not care anything abgut Sacchi, who, 
they say, lived in a garret in New york,_ or 
Captain Turnley said so. They were fishing 
for larger fishthan that. The gentleman saya 
that I said they devoted several pages of this 
report to this matter. I was wrong. It is only 
three pages, and not several. But they gravely 
wind up with this significant phrase : 

"It will hardly to be believed that the name 



8 



' of this same man, Saccbi, appears in the news- \ 
' papers as being on the staff of General Fremont I 
' at Springfield, with the rank of captain." i 

"Well now, if the gentlemen meant that liter- 
ally, they are right, for nobody would believe I 
it because it is found in their report. | Laugh- 
ter.] But if they meant, as I suppose they did, 
that nobody, without their veracious report, 
would believe that this man, with whom a 
fraudulent contract had been entered into 
through Fremont's agent, was a member of 
Fremont's stafi', it turns out that there is 
not a word of truth in it. This man Sacchi, 
who made the contract, was a resident of New 
York, an old man between sixty and seventy, 
who had lived there a great many years, and 
the Mr. Sacchi on Fremont's stafiF was a young 
gentleman from Europe, who never heard any- 
thing about this contract. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. Will the gentleman 
enlighten the House as to where he gets bis 
facts ? 

Mr. STEVENS. I have seen an affidavit 
made by the genuine horse dealer, Sacchi. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. Bx parte ? 

Mr. STEVENS. Yes ; and therefore I sup- 
pose the gentleman has a right to deny it if he 
will. It is not much better in that respect than 
this book. [Laughter ] 

Mr. WASHBURNE. I suppose the gentle- 
man will admit that the book is quite as good. 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, I do not suppose it 
is pretended now that this man Sacchi, on 
Fremont's staff, is the man who is implicated 
by this report. Even the gentleman from 
Massachusetts did not assert that, and I am 
sure my friend on the right will not. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. It is a matter I know 
nothing about. I do not know whether he 
came here " to crusade for freedom in freedom's 
holy land" or not. [Laughter.] 

Mr. STEVENS. I do not think he did know 
anything about it; and yet the committee re 
port the fact solemnly to the country, and base 
upon it this charge against Fremont. Why, 
I do not believe they knew more about this 
than they did about two-thirds of the other 
things they have put in this report. [Laugh- 
ter.] Now, sir, they ought to have known 
whether they did or not. There is a , mistake, 
whether you call it fraudulent or not. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. The gentleman seems 
to think that this is an attack upon his friend, 
and my friend, Fremont — because we fought 
the battle together in 185G. AVill he be good 
enough- to read, not three lines, but four linos 
and a half, at the top of the 94th page of the 
report ? 

Mr. STEVENS. Oh, I have read it, sir. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. Will my friend be 
good enough to read it to the House? 

Mr. STEVENS. Oh, no ; I do not care to 
do that. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. I wish you would. 



Mr. STEVENS. I can tell the House what 
it is, though. It is taking him by the beard 
and saying, "art thou in health, my brother?" 
[Much laughter.] They ought to have known 
the facts, if they did not, before they charged 
that this fraudulent contract had been made 
with a member of Fremont's staff. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. Does the gentleman 
say that the contract was a proper one ? Has 
he any fault to find with the committee for ex- 
posing the contract? 

Mr. STEVENS. The contract is not brought 
here in the resolution. If it was, I would vote 
that the. Mr. Sacchi who made the horse con- 
tract should not get a dollar more money. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. If he had an honest 
contract, why did he not ask for the money due 
him ? 

Mr. STETENS. Because he did not furnish 
the horses. [Laughter.] Because Fremont, 
having limited the time, revoked the contract 
when it expired, and would not let him go on 
and furnish the horses. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. The gentleman has 
certainly read the report, and he must have 
seen that Sa«chi did deliver a certain number 
of horses, for which six or seven thousand dol- 
lars was due him. If it was a perfectly honest 
transaction, why did not he appear and claim 
the payment of that amount ? 

Mr. STEVENS. I 'do not gay that it was an 
honest transaction ; and if the committee had 
set upon old Sacchi about it, I should not have 
objected. The whole significance of it is in 
the question — a little Jesuitical, perhaps, but it 
shows the ingenuity of the gentleman — " who 
would bejieve that this same Sacchi, who had 
thus made this contract with Fremont, or under 
his orders, was one of his own staff?" 

Mr. WASHBURNE. You say you would 
not believe it. 

Mr. STEVENS. I would not have believed 
it unless I had known it, I would not have be- 
lieved that Fremont would have made a con- 
tract with one of his own staff in that way, and 
I do not believe it yet, although the gentleman 
did assert it in that interrogative way. 

Having got through with what I had to say 
about number two, I come now to number 
three, upon which this resolution is founded, 
andmy friend from Massachusetts has discov- 
ered that it is that particular item which has 
interested me in this matter — I mean the con- 
tract with one Simon Stevens for Hall's car- 
bines, page 40 of the report. The gentleman 
from Massachusetts, with that perfect ingenu- 
ousness which is the index of his character, in 
attempting to account for my defending som% 
of these gentlemen again.st this report, and not 
being able to conceive of a higher motive than 
interest or connection, with a great flourish of 
trumpets informed this House that they, per- 
haps, did not know what it was that produced 
the disapprobation of the chMirman of the Com- 
mittee of Ways and Means, but he would state 



9 



to them what it was ; that the committee en- 
countered from him no opposition until they 
had touched a contract in which one Simon 
Stevens was interested. 

Now, I ask Ibe House what the public would 
infer, and what the gentleman intended that this 
House should infer, from that statement ? Why, 
that because this man happens to be of the 
same name, he is some connection or some 
family relative of inine. If he did not mean 
that, then it was a most unmeaning flourish of 
trumpets. Now, sir, at this point I will say 
that Simon Stevens is in no way, even in the 
most remote degree, any kindred of .mine. The 
gentleman would not tell the public that, nor 
have them believe it, I suppose, from his 
remarks. I do not say this for the purpose of 
casting any reflection upon Simon Stevens. He 
is a constituent of mine. I knew his father 
when I was very young, in Vermout. He is 
still living, and as intelligent and honorable a 
man as that noble State has ever produced. 
His son came to Pennsylvania to seek his for- 
tune long after I came there ; not to the same 
county, but I went to the county where he re- 
sided. His character, where he is known, 
stands as fair as that of any member of this 
House — except the committee. [Laughter.] 
He has never been charged or impeached with 
fraud until now by this committee. 

Mr. DAWES. Where was he educated ? 

Mr. STEVENS. In Vermont. 

Mr. DAWES. Where did he study law ? 

Mr. STEVENS. He read law with me, and 
hence I speak of him with,the more confidence 
as being a man of unimpeachable character. 
[Laughter.] And unless by these insinuations, 
which anywhere else would be despised, the 
gentleman can say naught to the contrary. 
Whatever I may be, lie is a gentleman of high 
character and standing. 

But it is said that until I found he was at- 
tacked, the committee encountered no opposi- 
tion from me. Does the gentleman from Mas- 
sachusetts see in what an awkward place he 
puts himself? I never knew that Mr. Stevens 
was attacked, nor did anybody else to my knowl- 
edge, till the report of the committee was pub- 
lished. How could I make any opposition to 
any part of its proceedings until I knew what 
those proceedings were ? The first I ever heard 
of the charge was when the book was first pub- 
lished. 

Mr. DAWES. Then I think that great in- 
justice has been done to the gentleman by this 
same Simon Stevens. 

Mr. STEVENS. If there is anything in the 
record the gentleman may state it, but if the 
gentleman is going to give parole evidence I 
must object. We have had enough of that 
already. 

Mr. DAWES. I was only going to tell the 
gentleman 

Mr. STEVENS. You need not tell me. I 



do not want to hear anything except what is 
in the record. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania declines to yield. 

Mr. DAWES. I see be does. 

Mr. STEVENS. So much for the insinua- 
tions of the gentleman as to motive. Now, 
what were the facts? You will remember, 
from the report all the way through, that the 
committee undertook to infer that Simon Stevens 
bought and sold these guns not for himself, but 
that it was a purchase of General Fremont's 
through Simon Stevens. The adoption of the 
resolution would censure General Fremont by 
charging him with attempting to get for these 
carbines ten dollars each more than they cost, 
and with buying them for the Government 
through an agent. Hence it was that I hum- 
bly submitted to the Chair that this was a res- 
olution of censure on General Fremont, and 
that therefore I had a right to offer my resolu- 
tion as an amendment. Now, did not the gen- 
tleman know that was not true ? Had he not 
direct evidence that that contract was made by 
Simon Stevens, not for General Fremont, but 
for himself ? The committee called Simon 
Stevens before it, and asked him that question. 
He was asked whether he bought these arms 
and sold thera for himself, or on account of 
General Fremont ; and he distinctly swore that 
nobody having anything to do v/ith the Gov- 
ernment had anything to do with his purchase 
or sale of those arms. He was asked : 

".Were you acting during any of the time you 
' mention as au agent of the Government ?" 
And his answer is : 
" I was not in any manner whatever." 

Now, sir, having some evidence that Mr. Si- 
mon Stevens had sent some guns to General 
Fremont by express, the committee reasoned 
from that that General Fremont purchased 
these arms, through him, for the Government, 
and afterwards sold them for his own profit. 
General Fremont would not go voluntarily be- 
fore the committee, but he professed his readi- 
ness to go if summoned. The committee was 
often invited to subpoena him, but did not do 
it, although he was several weeks in this city. 
A member of this House [Mr. Sedgwick] ad- 
dressed him a letter which, with General Fre- 
mont's reply, I a^k to have read 

[Here the hammer fell.] 

Several Members. Let the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania conclude his remarks. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. I will not object to 
that ; but I am very sorry that the same cour- 
tesy could not have been yielded to my col- 
league on the committee [Mr. Dawes] when he 
desired to make an explanation. \ 

The SPEAKER. Is there any objection? 

Mr. WASHBURNE. I do not object, al- 
though my colleague was veiy abruptly cut ofif 
the other day. 

Mr. STEVENS. Not by me. 



10 



Mr. WASHftURNE, I am proud to say, sir, 
■that it was not by you. You would uever have 
done such a thinp:. 

The following docunaents were read : 

House of Repkeskntatives, 
WASHiNTrTON CiTY, February 20, 18G2. 

Sir: I desire to have n statement from you, 
in writing, for the use of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, as to whether you purchased the five 
thousand Hall's carbines alluded to in the report 
of the committee to investigate Government 
contracts, of which Mr. Vax Wvck is chairman, 
from Simon Stevens, or through him ; and 
whether at any time Mr. Stevens was acting for 
you in the purchase or forwarding of ordnance 
stores to St. Louis during the time you were in 
command of the western department. 

I have the honor to be, very truly, your obe- 
dient servant, C. B. SEDGWICK. 

Major General J. C. Tre.mont, U. S. Army. 

• Washington, February 22, 1862. 

Sir : In reply to your note of inquiry, dated 
20th instant and received to-day, I have to say 
that the Hall's carbines, concerning which ques- 
tion is made, were purchased by me directly from 
Mr. Stevens, and not through him, agreeably to 
the ofier of sale received from him by telegram. 
Subsequently — about the 18th of August — Mr. 
Stevens was appointed to a post on my staff, and 
instructed by me to occupy himself as might be 
directed in ])rocuring and forwarding arms and 
stores from Now York and consignments to me 
from Europe on account of the United States. 
In this capacity he continued to act until about 
the 2Cth .September. 

With respect, yourrtruly, J. C. FREMONT. 
Hon. C. B. Sedgwick, House of Representatives. 

Mr. STEVENS. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have 
the positive testimony of'Simon Stevens that in 
this matter he acted for himself, and not as an 
agent, and we have also the express declaration 
of General Fremont that he bought these arras 
directly /^-o/M Simon Stevens, and not through 
him. And yet this resolution is so framed as 
to assert — and the committee, in its report, un- 
dertakes to assert — that General Fremont must 
have bought them through an agent, and that 
Simon Stevens was the agent for the purpose. 
I ask, therefore, whether I characterized this 
report too harshly when it aaks you to believe 
this, and when it declares that Simon Stevens 
is a perjured man, without having called a 
witness to impeach him ? That is not the sort 
of justice which the citizens of this country ex- 
pect from committees of Congress. It is not 
the kind of inference by which men's charac- 
ters are to he destroyed. As I said before, this 
effort, insidious as it is, jesuitically drawn as 
it is, is an effort to charge General Fremont 
with purchasing these arms for the Govern 
meut, through Simon Stevens, making it his 
transaction and his gain, instead the transac- 
tion and gain of Stevens ; and that is the prop- 
osition which this House is called upon to 
affirm. Now, I have a right to say that such a 



report as that is wholly false and unworthy of 
credit, for I have proved it to be so. The 
House must say so. If Simon Stevens pur- 
chased these arms from the owner at a che^p 
rate, had them altered, and then sold them back, 
it was a speculation which may not be very 
pleasant to look at; but it was a legitimate 
business transaction, and involves no officer of 
the Government. If any officers of the Govern- 
ment were involved, they were those who sold 
the arms at $3 50 each. Simon Stevens pur- 
chased them for $12 50, and after having them 
rifled and breeched, he sold them to General 
Fremont at $22. General Fremont states, ia 
his to^stimony, that they are good arms, and that 
they are now in use in the western department. 

Mr. SHANKS. They are in use in General 
Halleck's army, and did good service at the 
battle of Pea Ridge. 

Mr. DAWES. I ask the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania to turn his attention to the testi- 
mony of Captain Callender, of the St. Louis 
arsenal. 

Mr. STEVENS. I believe the gentleman 
from Indiana, [Mr. Shanks,] and General Fre- 
mont, as c|uickly as I would Captain Callender, 
or any other cullender that may be brought up. 
It is amazing with what teuacitv my friend from 
Massachusetts will insist on fixing fraudulent 
conduct on citizens who have not offended him, 
interlarding, very often, his own testimony to 
bring out the testimony of others. It is ac- 
counted for in a measure bv his habits and 
training as a prosecuting officer. We often 
acquire habits in this way which we cannot get 
rid of. I do not think this quality natural to 
my friend. He says that we have abused this 
report, and characterized it as a lying report. 
I was speaking of the effect of the instrument, 
and did not desire to be understood as implying 
falsehood on the part of the committee. I pro- 
pose to call a living witness to prove that fact, 
because I stand by what I say, and will prove 
it if I can ; if I cannot, I will retract it. 

General Fremont, in his sworn testimony be- 
fore the joint committee on the conduct of the 
war, uses this language in reference to the op- 
portunity afforded him by the committee of the 
House of being heard : 

" And while examining into the conduct and 
' events of the war, I think it right to call the 
' attention of jonr committee to the fact that a 
' committee charged to ' investigate frauds' came 
' into a department which was under martial 
' law, in the midst of civil dissensions encourag- 
' ing insubordination, diserediting and weaken- 
' ing the authority of the commanding general, 
' tlien absent in the field, and 1 oiler testimony to 
' sliow that their conduct while at St. Louis cre- 
' ated a public opinion that their special object 
' was to make out a case against myself which 
' should justify my removal from that depart- 
' raent. (See page 10 of that report.) And I 
' oifer testimony to show that they avoided and 
' declined to receive, and have suppressed, testi- 



11 



' mony Avhich militated against this object, and 
' further to show that there arain thereport many 
' inaccuracies and perversions and some positive 
' falsehoods." 

Who impeaches that witness? 

Mr. DAWES. Perhaps the gentleman did 
not observe, as he was absent a portion of the 
time on Friday, that I asked the committee on 
the conduct of the war whether General Fre- 
mont had furnished any further evidence upon 
that point. 

Mr. STEVENS. One member of that com- 
mittee. 

Mr. DAWES. I asked the committee on the 
conduct of the war that question. 

Mr. STEVENS. I heard the gentleman ask 
the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Odell,] 
who is a member of that committee, and he 
responded. 

Dr. DAWES. My question was addre^iaed 
to the committee, several members of which I 
saw present ; and I then remarked that I would 
call on the gentleman from New York for an 
answer. In the presence of the committee, he 
replied that General Fremont had not furnish- 
ed any evidence to sustain the charges made 
by him, except his own statement. 

Mr. STEVENS. I recollect the question of 
the •gentleman, and my recollection is that the 
gentleman from New York stated that he did 
not know that there was any evidence before 
them upon this point, escept General Fremont's. 
I think that was the answer. Now, I do not say 
that that evidence has been taken, but I would 
ask thi gentleman from Indiana on my right, 
[Mr. Julian,] who is a member of that com 
mittee, whether General Fremont has furnished 
them with the names of witnesses which he 
still desires to have them examine ? 

Mr. JULIAN. I will state, in answer to 
the question, that General Fremont did furnish 
us with a list of witnesses whom he desired us 
to call, by whom he told us he could prove ev- 
ery material fact which he asserted upon his 
own responsibility. The committee, however, 
at that time only sent for such witnesses as in 
their judgment were necessary to clear up mat- 
ters left in doubt, and settle the substantial 
merits of the case as they then understood it. 
I ought, perhaps, further to state that both 
General Fremont and those who have assailed 
him have since insisted upon further testimony 
upon one side and upon the other, and that I 
believe some further examination will be made 
of other witnesses upon these matters by the 
committee on the conduct of the war. 

Mr. DAWES. Perhaps the gentleman 
from Indiana will either corroborate or deny 
the statement made, by his colleague on the 
committee on the conduct of the war? 

Mr. STEVENS. Oh ! there is no dispute 
about that. 

Mr. JULIAN. I think the statement made 
by my colleague was correct, although I did not 



understand it precisely as the gentleman from 

Massachusetts states it. 

Mr. DAWES. Will the gentleman allow 
me to ask the gentleman from New York 
whether I did not state hia answer to my ques- 
tion correctly ? 

Mr. ODELL. The gentleman stated my an- 
swer, as I recollect it. 

Mr. STEVENS. I have not called in ques- 
tion the accuracy of the statement at all, I 
think it was correct. But I was going to ask 
the gentleman from Indiana whether he did 
not, at the request of General Fremont, furnish 
to the committee on the conduct of the war the 
names of witnesses who General Fremont 
supposed would prove the facts I have sug- 
gested. 

Mr. SHANKS. I did furnish to one mem- 
ber of the committee some names which Gen- 
eral Fremont handed to me, who, he told me, 
could prove the facts suggested by the gentle- 
man from Pennsylvania, among a good many 
others, which I could mention, but I suppose it 
is unnecessary. 

Mr. GOOCH. I desire to ask the gentleman 
from Indiana whether he furnished to any 
member of the committee on the conduct of the 
war the names of any witnesses who he said 
could prove those charges against the commit- 
tee on Government contracts ? '^ 

Mr. SHANKS. I hope the gentleman from 
Massachusetts did not understand, when I said 
that General Fremont furnished me with a list 
of witnesses and stated what they could prove, 
that I prescribed to the committee what ques- 
tions they should ask them. 

Mr. GOOCH. Was there any communica- 
tion to the committee as to what testimony 
these witnesses would give? 

Mr. SHANKS. Certainly not. 

Mr. GOOCH. I desire to state, in behalf of 
that committee, that we have been desired to 
take the testimony of a cloud of witnesses to 
prove various points ; but as these witnesses 
were, many of them, in Missouri, and others at 
other distant points, the committee have found 
it impracticable to bring before them the per- 
persons whose names have been suggested. At 
the same time, a© far as this matter is concern- 
ed, if the House desire to spend the money of 
the Government in that way, we are willing to 
send for and examine all those gentlemen, 

Mr. WASHBURNE. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania has read an extract from General 
Fremont's testimony in which he says the com- 
mittee on Government contracts have declined 
to receive testimony and have suppressed tes- 
timony. I desire to say that the committee 
did not decline to take testimony or suppress 
testimony. And any assertion of that kind by 
General Fremont, or anybody else, is utterly 
untrue. 

Mr, STEVENS, It may all be so, I have 
very often heard them plead '■ not guilty " be- 
fore. [Laughter.] But, sir, I am not using 



12 



my own assertion ; I am not using ray own 
perversion of taetimony; I am reading sworn 
evidence. 

Mr. WA8HBURNE. Does the gentleman 
call that evidence, when General Fremont, who 
gives it, ^reposes to prove the truth of his as- 
sertions by witnesses which he does not call ? 

Mr. STEVENS. He did call them, but they 
have not come. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. And they never will 
come. 

Mr. STEVENS. They will come, I suppose, 
if the committee send for them ; but I do not 
intend to cast any reflection upon the commit- 
tee on the conduct of the war for not sending 
for them. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. The gentleman has 
referred to the example, as he calls it, of the 
committee oh the conduct of the war in giving 
notice to the party accused. Did that commit- 
tee give this committee.. of the House notice 
that they were accused of falsehood and the 
suppression of testimony ? 

Mr. STEVENS. I do not know. I do not 
belong to that committee. If they have not 
given it. they ought to. That is all I have to 
say. The gentleman from Illinois does not, of 
course, und«r«tand me as intending to make 
any retlections upon him. 

Mr. WASaBURNE. Certainly not. The 
gentleman has too much amiability for that. 

Mr. GOOCH. The committee on the con- 
duct of the war have not found it necessary to 
give any such notice. The publication of the 
testimony of General Fremont was a sufficient 
notice. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. By the order of the 
committee ? 

Mr. GOOCH. No, sir. 

Mr. \VAt5HBURNE. By whose order ? 

Mr, GOOCH. General Fremont, I suppose, 
had it published. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. How did he obtain 
possession of the evidence ? 

Mr. GOOCH. I suppose he retained a copy. 

Mr. COLFAX. Can the gentleman from Illi- 
nois inform the House how a telegraphic sum- 
mary of the testimony taken before his com- 
mittee in St. Louis, while General Fremont 
was in the field in the face of the enemy, came 
to be sent to New York and published in the 
New York papers ? 

Mr. WASHBURNE. No, sir; I do not 
know anything about it. Does the gentleman 
from Indiana know? 

Mr. COLFAX. No, sir ; I do not. ' 

Mr. WA.'^HBURNE. Then why does the 
gentleman bring it in here at this time ? 

Mr. COLFAX. Because it was a fact that 
while the committee on Government contracts 
were in 8t. Louis, an abstract of their report was 
sent to the New YOrk papers, very much to 
the detriment of General Fremont and the 
military operations of his department, while he 
was chasing the enemy in a distant part of the 



State. They went through the State of Mis- 
souri and took teatimouy behind his back. They 
sat in secret session with closed doors, and yet 
an abstract of that ex imrtc testimony was put 
upon the telegraph wires and spread all over 
the country. That abstract of testimony could 
have onl" been obtained in one way. 

Mr, WASHBURNE. There was 'no abstract 
so published. 

Mr. COLFAX. It must have been publish- 
ed by the consent of the committee. 

Mr. STEVENS. It must have merely been 
"a mistake of the printer." [Laughter.] Now, 
sir, this House called lor that testimony by a, 
large majority. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. What was that resolu- 
tion ? 

Mr. STEVENS. To furnish the testimony, 
if it were deemed compatible with the public 
interest. 

Mr. WASHBURNE. Did the House order 
General Fremont to publish it without the con- 
sent of the committee ? 

Mr. STEVENS. Neither did the Adjutant 
General ask the consent of Congress to publish 
his charges. Perhaps we ought to have con- 
sulted him about it. 

Mr. COLFaX. The committee are aware 
and the House are aware that the charges of 
the committee and of the communication, of 
General Thomas were spread all over this land 
against General Fremont, and it was notdeemed 
incompatible with the public interest. That 
was considered all rio;ht and proper ; but when 
General Fremont's defence is made public, we 
hear the allegation that it was not compatible 
with the public interest. When these charges 
were made against him, and disseminated 
throughout the country for effect upon the pub- 
lic mind, he could not believe that it was not 
right and proper to give his reply to the pub- 
lic. 

Mr. STEVENS. I am sorry that General 
Fremont made the mistake of not consulting 
Adjutant General Thomas. He had been at- 
tacked by the AdjutantGeneral for three months, 
and he had been attacked by this special com- 
mittee, and he had gone before the world on 
their reports without one word in his behalf. 
Then he was weak enough to dare, through the 
publication of his testimony, to let the public 
know that he was not guilty. Without being 
a member of General Fremont's staff, although 
there is a man upon it of my name, I take upon 
myself the responsibility of apologizing for Gen- 
3ral Fremont's mistake. [Laug1iter.| 

Now, sir, a word about a personal matter, 
which has been given much publicity by the 
eloquence of the gentleman from Massachu- 
setts, [Mr. Dawes.] He denounced me with 
once having been on unfriendly terms with 
General Cameron, and with now being in social 
intimacy with him. As I have said already, 
I have not introduced the name of General 
Cameron in this debate. It is unpleasant to 



13 



go into one's biography. It is true, as the 
gentleman has said, before the appointment of 
General Cameron to a place in the Cabinet of 
Mr. Lincoln, I, together with eight or ten 
others of my colleagues, waited on Mr. Lin- 
coln and protested against his appointment as 
a member of the Cabinet. We did not think 
that he was the proper person to go there, nor 
did we think that he had the capacity. We 
gave other strong reasons why he should not be 
appointed. It is true that those reasons did 
not appear very strong, for the executive power 
treated them as I expect they deserved to be 
treated, with nilent contempt. General Cam- 
eron was appointed a member of Mr. Lincoln's 
Cabinet. There was no reason why, if he 
spoke to me, I should not speak to him. He 
had done me no harm, but he took it into his 
head that it was offensive for me to go with 
others to the President to protest against his 
appointment" as a Cabinet officer, as no doubt 
it was. He cut my acquaintance, and we had 
no further intercourse until I came here to 
Congress in last July. 

In the mean time General Cameron was a Cab- 
inet officer, and I made up my mind, as a Chris- 
tian, I suppose, to forsret what I had said about 
him, and to judge him by his official conduct. 
I intended that my judgment of him should be 
controlled by his official conduct. I was some- 
what surprised that he took the sarae view of 
conducting and ending this war that I did. I 
know that there was a difference of opinion 
whether he was wright or wrong. I thought 
that he was right. I thought he was better upon 
that ground than any other member of the 
President's Cabinet. I had ascertained, not 
through him, but through others, that he had 
written instructions to General Sherman, from 
Cincinnati, which had been materially altered 
before they reached him. He was in favor of 
employing fugitives from labor or service in the 
service of the United States ; but there was 
added by another hand "this, however, was 
not to be a general arming of them for military 
service." He wrote " you will assure all loyal 
masters that Congress will provide just com- 
pensation to thetn for the loss of the services of 
the persons so employed. You will assure all 
persons held to involuntary labor who may be 
thus received into the service of the Govern- 
ment, that they will, under np circumstances, 
be again reduced to their former condition, unless 
at the expiration oftheir respective terms of ser- 
vice they freeiy choose to return to the service 
oftheir former masters." The latter was in the 
orginal, but it was all stricken out. The people 
know how his report was emasculated. I felt 
that he was right, and I said here, and I said 
everywhere, that I would support hira so long 
as he punned that course. After I had said 
that publicly, General Cameron waited on rao. 
He came, he said, to renew 'our acquaint- 
ance. He said that he sav/ I was supporting 
him, and as we had to act together he desired 



to be on terms of personal intercourse. I re- 
replied that I had not the slightest objection. I 
told him that I would support hinj so long as 
he followed out the course which he hadstart- 
ed. I told him further, that I would look upon 
Ms past record as a blank sheet, and that I 
would judge him by his official conduct as a 
Cabinet officer. That is how General Cameron 
and I came to speak. 

The gentleman who has alluded to this per- 
sonal matter has seen no indelicacy, either, in 
referring to private hospitalities in this city. 
He said that I was found at General Cumeron'3 
table, with others, and that there all of these 
differences were reconciled through four horse 
contracts, yielding a profit of some four hun- 
dred thousand dollars. I do not know whether 
any slander is attempted to be insinuated 
against me. He said my colleagues were there, 
and that these contracts settled all political dif- 
ferences, and that we went before the President 
upon our knees and begged to withdraw our 
protest against General Cameron. I would 
like to know upon what authority the gentleman 
makes that declaration. Neither my colleagues 
nor myself ever withdrew any protest which we 
had made to the President, nor did we ever 
attempt to apologize for it. Yet the gentleman 
would make the public believe that because of 
these horse contracts, some of my colleagues 
withdrew the protest which they had made 
against the appointment of General CameroQ 
to a Cabinet appointment. I regret that the 
gentleman should have deemed it necessary to 
give currency to this slander. After the time 
referred to, I was invited to dine with General 
Cameron, in company with the Governor and 
chief justice of Pennsylvania. I could see no 
good reason why I should not. I went there; 
I did not find one of my. colleagues who had 
protested to the President against the appoint- 
ment of General Cameron. I met there some 
thirty persons, whom I did not feel very much 
ashamed to have met, though if the' insinua- 
tions of the gentleman were true, I ought to 
have been ashamed. I met there the Gover- 
nor and chief justice of Pennsylvania, several 
officers of the army, and most of the Cabinet; 
and the Commander in-Chief of the armies and 
navies of the United Stages was also present at 
that polluted and polluting feast, which the gen- 
tleman from Massachusetts has twice dragged 
before the public. 

Mr. DAWES. The gentleman has'probably 
inadvertently falleji into two mistakes : the 
first is that I asserted, here or elsewhere, that 
any of his colleagues were there with him ; and 
secondly, that I have, brought out here twice 
this matter of the feast. It was a telegram from 
this city, contained in the public papers, and it 
was considered of sufficient import inoe to state 
that the distinguished gentleman from Penn- 
svlvania was there, and that the purpose of the 
feast was precisely what I stated to the Hous«. 
I did not say it in any such connection as the 



14 



gentleman has used it. Nor have I ever put 
the matter of th» feast in connection with the 
fact thai thdf men who protested ao;ainat the 
appointment of Mr. Cameron afterwards went 
up and— = — 

Mr. STEVENS. I understood the gentle- 
man to say, in connection with that feast, that 
old political feuds and horse contracts were 
there settled. 

Mr. Dawes. I do not qualify that. I re- 
peat it and stand by it. 

Mr. STEVENS. That the gentleman re- 
peats but tjives no evidence of it. He is in the 
habit of asserting things of which there is no 
evidence and no foundation in fact. 

But, sir, the gentleman stated another thing. 
He stated that after I had stated what I did and 
made my attack upon their report on the Mon- 
day when the committee were absent, he ac- 
counted for it by saying that that gentleman — 
I understood him to refer to an ex-Cabinet 
minister- — was in this Hall and came to my seat 
and immediately congratulated me upon the 
success of my achievement. I would be glad 
if the gentleman would tell me the source of 
his information. 

Mr. DAWES. I would be glad to have the 
gentleman state whether Mr. Cameron did not 
appear at his seat on Wednesday last and take 
him by the hand and congratulate him upon 
the matter which transpired on Monday. 

Mr. STEVENS. I say he did not. Now, I 
ask for the authority. 

Mr. DAWES. He appeared at your seat on 
Wednesday? 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Cameron was not here 
on Monday that I know of. 

Mr. DAWES. That was not my interroga- 
tory. 

Mr. STEVENS. Let me finish my answer. 
On Wednesday Mr. Cameron called here and 
asked me when he could have an interview 
with me j and I believe that is all he said. He 
did not then, nor has he since mentioned to 
me my speech, or its effect. 

Mr. DAWES. The gentleman, if he has 
read my remarks, will understand that I said 
that I did not have the privilege of being pres- 
ent when he attacked me and my associates, 
but that I was informed that subsequently to 
this attack, General Cameron appeared at his 
seat and congratulated him. I state now that 
1 was so inform.ed. The gentleman says that 
General Cameron did appear at his seat just 
when I say he did, that he did take him by the 
hand just when I say he did, and did ask him 
when he might have a private interview with' 
him. What else he said I do not know, and 
I do not care. 

Mr. STEVENS. I have not time to turn to 
the gentleman's speech, but it strikes me that 
the gentleman connected General Cameron's 
presence in this Hall with my speech on that 
uame day. 

Mr. DAWES. I state further that I did sup- 



[ pose that he was here on Monday, for I under- 
stood a gentleman to tell me distinctly that 
General Cameron was here on Monday, and 
, with the gentleman he mentioned. I know he 
I was here on Wednesday, and that was the time 
' to which I referred, when he appeared at the 
gentleman's seat and congratulated him upon 
his achievement. 
; Mr. STEVENS. I have now the gentleman's 
speech before me. He says ! 

j " Sir, 1 am not permitted to overlook also the' 
i ' connection of others in this matter. Altliough 
j ' I had not tlie privilege of being present during 
' the fore p;irt of this week, when this scene trans- 
' pired, I am informed that a distinguished ex- 
' functionary of the Government was here in this 
' House as the generalissimo on that occasion. 
' I am informed that subsequently he appeared 
' at the scat of the distinguished member from 
' Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens,] and congratu- 
' latcd him on the signal success of his achieve- 
' ment over the committee." 

Mr. DAWES, I was so informed. 

Mr. STEVENS. Will the gentleman allow 
us to know who informed him ? 

Mr. DAWES. Does the gentleman want a 
private conversation ? 

Mr. STEVENS. Why was it made use of 
in this House, if it was a private conversation ? 

Mr. DAWES. The gentleman, in underta- 
king to defend General Fremont from an at- 
tack made behind his back, thinks it justifiable 
to attack somebody else behind his back ; and 
the person attacked behind his back was com- 
pelled to get the information as to the manner 
in which the attack was ^ade from those who 
knew about it. 

Mr. STEVENS. I do not object to that j 
but I want to know who gave such information. 

Mr DAWES. I have not myself the slight- 
est objection to informing the gentleman ; but 
I do not suppose the gentlemen who gave me 
the information desire to have their names in- 
volved, and themselves exposed to the scarifi- 
cation of the erentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. STEVENS. I shall not scarify the 
gentlemen, if I know what that word means. 
[Laughter.] The gentleman awhile ago said 
that he was informed that Alexander Cum- 
mings, when he was so sick that he was not ex- 
pected to recove'r, said that if he got well he 
would confess his sins and make a clean breast 
pf it. 

Mr. DAWES. I repeat it now, and I have 
the good fortune to know that it does not de- 
pend upon my recollection alone. 

Mr. STEVENS. And the gentleman will 
not give the name of his informer when he is 
asked for it. 

Mr. DAVv'ES. When a man charges me 
with lying he must take what he gets in return, 
and should not expect me to give him any 
sort of explanation until he retracts what he 
has said. 



15 



Mr. STEVENS. To whom does the'gentle- 
man refer? 

Mr. DAWES. I refer to the man who com- 
plains that I will not give the name of my in- 
former. 

Mr. STEVENS. Several have made that 
complaint. 

Mr. DAWES. Having charged me with 
lying, upon this floor, merely because the 
printer makes a mistake, when I attempt to 
reply he goes around whining, and wants me 
to give the name of my informer. I told him 
distinctly that no man who made such a charge 
against' me could hold any correspondence with 
me. I refer not to the gentleman who is now 
speaking ; but to the man whom he is trying 
to defend by a very small hole in the indict- 
ment. 



Mr. STEVENS. I must leave this matter, 
as the gentleman will not say from whom he 
derived his information. I have detained the 
House too long upon a mere personal matter. 

I am willing to believe that the members of 
the committee arfr actuated by the purest mo- 
tives in this investigation. I cannot believe 
that it is an innate love of scandal which indu- 
ces them to their course. *rhey must have some 
higher motive. I can hardly believe that they 
should rejoice or . take any pleasure in feeding 
upon the mangled carcasses of the reputations 
of their fellow-citizens, for that would be rank- 
ing them with the furies of the French Revolu- 
tion, who attended the scaffolds, who dipped 
their handkerchiefs in human gore, and gob- 
bled up the garbage which lay around the foot 
of the (^aillotine. 



I«E«,!.^ INGRESS 



013 701 ST' I 

1 



